Letter from Editor
Dear Dr ***
MS ****
Your paper has been seen by a Reviewing Editor and an Expert Referee and I regret to have to inform you that it is not considered suitable for publication in the Journal of Physiology. The reasons for this are set out in the enclosed reports from the reviewers . At the present time the Journal of ＊ is receiving many papers for which strongly supported reviews are obtained with a resulting pressure on availability of space. Under these circumstances I regret that we are unable to provide any further editorial consideration of your paper . The Editor did think however, that the pharmacology of the purinergic receptor was interesting, and that it might be possible for you to submit a new paper, after taking into account the criticisms made of MS ****.
Yours sincerely,

Editor's report
This paper shows potentially interesting results on ATP- and ADP-induced oscillations of Ca-dependent K currents. One of the interesting points of the paper is to show that this purinergic response has a rather unique pharmacology, with ADP having a 30-times higher efficacy than ATP. The paper suffers however from a number of shortcomings. The presentation is at times poor. The discussion, for instance, fails to critically analyse the results and includes very speculative parts (e. g., first para. of p. 13). It also appears that the authors may not have paid sufficient attention to such technical pitfalls as junction potential changes in ion substitution experiments, proper wash out of lipid soluble form of BAPTA after cell loading, and alteration in effective agonist concentration due to Ca binding to purinergic agonists. These defects make the paper unsuitable for publication in the Journal of *. The authors may wish to resubmit a new Ms after consideration of the following points, and of additional points raised by an extemal referee.
Major points:***

Referee's comment
This paper presents data on K+-current oscillations induced by ATP or purinoceptor stimulations. It is a slightly unsatisfactory report since most of the findings are not really novel. **** So , a new finding in the paper seems the presence of a P2Y Prinoreceptor subtype (InsP3/DG pathway) in megakaryocytes. In this situation one would expect an in-depth study of Ca2+-oscillations, at least certain aspects of their mechanisms.
Minor comments:
In Methods, it is preferable to describe details of perforated patch technique applied to megakaryocytes; a dose of nystatin in the pipette, series resistance between pipette and cell interior, time course of the establishment etc. In Results, ***, what is the reason for conducting this type of experiments? How does it relate to the major story of this paper? In the same section, the figure ****

Back